|
|||||
|
|
Compositional classification of “kimberlitic” and “non-kimberlitic” ilmenite |
|
| Authors: | Bruce A Wyatt Mike Baumgartner Eva Anckar Herman Grutter |
| Institution: | a De Beers Canada Exploration Inc., 1 William Morgan Drive, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4H 1N6 b Mineral Services South Africa, Cape Town 7430, South Africa c University of Cape Town Kimberlite Research Group, Cape Town 7700, South Africa d Mineral Services Canada, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7P 3S7 |
| Abstract: | Ilmenite is one of the common kimberlitic indicator minerals recovered during diamond exploration, and its distinction from non-kimberlitic rock types is important. This is particularly true for regions where these minerals are present in relatively low abundance, and they are the dominant kimberlitic indicator mineral recovered. Difficulty in visually differentiating kimberlitic from non-kimberlitic ilmenite in exploration concentrates is also an issue, and distinguishing kimberlitic ilmenite from those derive from other similar rocks, such as ultramafic lamprophyres, is practically impossible. Ilmenite is also the indicator mineral whose compositional variety has the most potential to resolve provenance issues related to mineral dispersions with contributions from multiple kimberlite sources. Various published data sets from selected kimberlitic (including kimberlites, lamproites, and various ultramafic lamprophyres) and non-kimberlitic rock types have been compiled and evaluated in terms of their major element compositions. Compositional fields and bounding reference lines for ilmenites derived from kimberlites (sensu stricto), ultramafic lamprophyres, and other non-kimberlitic rock types have been defined primarily on MgO–TiO2 graphs as well as MgO–Cr2O3 relationships. |
| Keywords: | Picroilmenite Geikielite Hematite Kimberlite Exploration Classification |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ | |